I would know, I'm from Akron, am friends with Charlie, and it pains me to watch the Browns as well. Mostly just because they are the only option on television and are pathetic half the time, and just painful enough to lose at the end the other half.

I would know, I'm from Akron, am friends with Charlie, and it pains me to watch the Browns as well. Mostly just because they are the only option on television and are pathetic half the time, and just painful enough to lose at the end the other half.

Didn't you play with Charlie at one time? And if you know him, let's see you get a pic.

__________________

Another sig courtesy of BoneKrusher

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBCX

Despite looking better against an underachieving Eagles team, I still think the Bears are one of the worst teams in the NFL. I smell a blowout victory by the Lions this week and a division sweep.

I am willing to bet you any amount of money that the Titans receivers have dropped more balls on Vince, and let more catchable or just deflectable balls get intercepted. That and Edge is an above average receiver out of the backfield. No Vince isn't immune to stats, but look at the games he has won, he has used his legs very effectively, for example in the Texans game. Look at the Titans before Vince and look at them after, before Vince most people thought they would have a top 5 draft pick for sure, but he turned it around. What has Leinart done? If your team is losing it's the quarterbacks job to play to win and put his stats in the back seat. Carr had the highest qb rating in the NFL earlier this season, but the Texans weren't doing anything except losing. Vince's added dimension of being able to run the ball makes him better than Leinart easily. There is no doubt in my mind about Vince's superiority to Leinart.

Although I didn't want to turn this into a Young/Leinart debate... here goes. There's no doubt that Arizona's receivers are better than Tennesee (although Fitz has been out with injury for awhile this season). However this is offset by the fact that Arizona has a much worse offensive line, and until last week no run game. Leinart did everything he could to win, leading the team on last minute drives in both the Kansas City and Chicago games, both oppurtunites blown by Neil Rackers. If Rob Bironas kicked for Arizona, then Leinart would be just as impressive and in the running for ROY. Vince might be able to run the ball better, but Leinart is the better passer. It's impossible to say which one is better as both have shown lots of poise and leadership. My point is that if Bironas doesn't hit that 60 yarder against Indy and Kiwanuka learns how to tackle then we wouldn't even be hearing Vince Young's name. It isn't just the quarterbacks responsibility to win or lose games. It's a team effort.

I am willing to bet you any amount of money that the Titans receivers have dropped more balls on Vince, and let more catchable or just deflectable balls get intercepted. That and Edge is an above average receiver out of the backfield. No Vince isn't immune to stats, but look at the games he has won, he has used his legs very effectively, for example in the Texans game. Look at the Titans before Vince and look at them after, before Vince most people thought they would have a top 5 draft pick for sure, but he turned it around. What has Leinart done? If your team is losing it's the quarterbacks job to play to win and put his stats in the back seat. Carr had the highest qb rating in the NFL earlier this season, but the Texans weren't doing anything except losing. Vince's added dimension of being able to run the ball makes him better than Leinart easily. There is no doubt in my mind about Vince's superiority to Leinart.

Although I didn't want to turn this into a Young/Leinart debate... here goes. There's no doubt that Arizona's receivers are better than Tennesee (although Fitz has been out with injury for awhile this season). However this is offset by the fact that Arizona has a much worse offensive line, and until last week no run game. Leinart did everything he could to win, leading the team on last minute drives in both the Kansas City and Chicago games, both oppurtunites blown by Neil Rackers. If Rob Bironas kicked for Arizona, then Leinart would be just as impressive and in the running for ROY. Vince might be able to run the ball better, but Leinart is the better passer. It's impossible to say which one is better as both have shown lots of poise and leadership. My point is that if Bironas doesn't hit that 60 yarder against Indy and Kiwanuka learns how to tackle then we wouldn't even be hearing Vince Young's name. It isn't just the quarterbacks responsibility to win or lose games. It's a team effort.

So Arizona's offensive line is bad, so what? So is Tennessee's. Arizona's line is worse, but Vince is able to elude defenders and is much more mobile in the pocket (and outside). To offset your argument about offensive lines, how about this, Tennessee has the worst ranked defense in the NFL right now and has let in 6 more TD's and is the worst when it comes to TOP. It's quite the rarity to find a team that is the worst in TOP that has a winning record. Even without Fitz Anquan is so much better than Benett, and I would take Bryant Johnson over Bobby Wade any day of the week. As for the 4th quarter drives, in the KC game that would have just tied it up for overtime with a field goal where you are assuming they would win, which doesn't really matter here. Also in the Chicago game, he had an excellent start to the game, but then grew stagnant and as Chicago started coming back he could put up no more points on the board. Arizona's defense was the reason that they were in that game, picking off Grossman 4 times, all that Leinart had to do was manage the lead. Rackers kicked 5 field goals in that game, 3 of which he made, and it isn't ideal to depend on your kicker all that much. Vince didn't depend on Bironas in the Texans game, he just took off and scored the touchdown. He did what he could to avoid overtime and get the win. You are aware that Bironas's field goal in the Indi game and in the Giants game were game winners right? As opposed to Neil Rackers's which were necessary to tie the game so it could go into overtime. Vince didn't let the team get into situations where they lost if the kicker missed a field goal. Ordinarily I agree, qb's don't win games, but Vince often times takes it upon himself and runs the ball downfield extending his drive going beyond the expected job of the qb to do what is necessary. Also just to remind you that Bironas missed two field goals as well in the game against the Ravens, but I'm sure you already knew that. If you want you can blame it all on Rackers, but that's just irrationally pointing the finger. The point is Bironas misses some too, but the Titans still win games. Vince is a beast.

So Arizona's offensive line is bad, so what? So is Tennessee's. Arizona's line is worse, but Vince is able to elude defenders and is much more mobile in the pocket (and outside). To offset your argument about offensive lines, how about this, Tennessee has the worst ranked defense in the NFL right now and has let in 6 more TD's and is the worst when it comes to TOP. It's quite the rarity to find a team that is the worst in TOP that has a winning record. Even without Fitz Anquan is so much better than Benett, and I would take Bryant Johnson over Bobby Wade any day of the week. As for the 4th quarter drives, in the KC game that would have just tied it up for overtime with a field goal where you are assuming they would win, which doesn't really matter here. Also in the Chicago game, he had an excellent start to the game, but then grew stagnant and as Chicago started coming back he could put up no more points on the board. Arizona's defense was the reason that they were in that game, picking off Grossman 4 times, all that Leinart had to do was manage the lead. Rackers kicked 5 field goals in that game, 3 of which he made, and it isn't ideal to depend on your kicker all that much. Vince didn't depend on Bironas in the Texans game, he just took off and scored the touchdown. He did what he could to avoid overtime and get the win. You are aware that Bironas's field goal in the Indi game and in the Giants game were game winners right? As opposed to Neil Rackers's which were necessary to tie the game so it could go into overtime. Vince didn't let the team get into situations where they lost if the kicker missed a field goal. Ordinarily I agree, qb's don't win games, but Vince often times takes it upon himself and runs the ball downfield extending his drive going beyond the expected job of the qb to do what is necessary. Also just to remind you that Bironas missed two field goals as well in the game against the Ravens, but I'm sure you already knew that. If you want you can blame it all on Rackers, but that's just irrationally pointing the finger. The point is Bironas misses some too, but the Titans still win games. Vince is a beast.

With the KC game, I wasn't saying that the field goal would've won it, merely saying that Leinart has been just about as clutch as Vince has been this year leading the team when it counted. The only reason that Leinart grew stagnant against the Bears in the second half is that he only passed it on third and long. Again, that's really irrelevant. The point was that Leinart led them on another clutch drive (which was stopped short by Denny so they could miss the field goal). I'm not blaming it all on Rackers, just pointing out that he is having a very bad year (after the best year by a kicker in NFL history), and that wins and losses don't accurately reflect how good a quarterback is. Of course Leinart has played poorly, but Young also stunk it up for his first bunch of games. Both are proving doubters wrong, both are performing better than expected, both have had patches of greatness, both have had poor performances, both are very clutch, and both don't deserve ROY.

I would know, I'm from Akron, am friends with Charlie, and it pains me to watch the Browns as well. Mostly just because they are the only option on television and are pathetic half the time, and just painful enough to lose at the end the other half.

Didn't you play with Charlie at one time? And if you know him, let's see you get a pic.

You just want me to run up next to him, take a picture, and download it on the internet?

I don't talk to him during the football season much, but if I remember I'll get one once it's over.

I would know, I'm from Akron, am friends with Charlie, and it pains me to watch the Browns as well. Mostly just because they are the only option on television and are pathetic half the time, and just painful enough to lose at the end the other half.

Didn't you play with Charlie at one time? And if you know him, let's see you get a pic.

You just want me to run up next to him, take a picture, and download it on the internet?

I don't talk to him during the football season much, but if I remember I'll get one once it's over.

Um yea, duh. :roll: :P

__________________

Another sig courtesy of BoneKrusher

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBCX

Despite looking better against an underachieving Eagles team, I still think the Bears are one of the worst teams in the NFL. I smell a blowout victory by the Lions this week and a division sweep.

Sure Hester has been great but he's been good as a return man. Young has been good at QB with a weak team around him.

Young definately deserves it before Hester.

and realistically, hester would likely have had to have made an impact at an offensive or defensive position. i think it would have to be an awful weak year to give it to a return specialist, no matter how amazing he's been.

Sure Hester has been great but he's been good as a return man. Young has been good at QB with a weak team around him.

Young definately deserves it before Hester.

and realistically, hester would likely have had to have made an impact at an offensive or defensive position. i think it would have to be an awful weak year to give it to a return specialist, no matter how amazing he's been.